A Whip and a Prod

[Ven]

You call that a pony cart?
THIS is a pony cart

LOL, i think we've proved enough. 1/ a cart/barrow pulled by a horse, does not have legs/supports as per post #1, 2/ a two wheeled cart/barrow was sat upon above the axle... my biggest issue... I have never seen someone sitting afore of the two wheeled axle.... even today's trotter/pacer drivers sit above the two wheels... and some drivers are rather large... sitting above the axle spreads the weight

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I haven't read the more recent posts yet, but I suspect you are banging your head against a brick wall. If Michael didn't acknowledge this the first time you explained it, I doubt he will ever do so. It's even worse if he wants the translator to be Wess [although I've lost track of whether Wess is meant to have been in on the conspiracy or not]. How hard could it have been for the conspirators to have come up with a simple story without a shred of ambiguity, starring an obviously Gentile thug shoving Stride around outside the club, while hurling an anti-Semitic insult, very obviously at Schwartz to deter him from interfering?

This would have been an outright lie, if told to protect the club and deflect suspicion onto a non-Jewish killer, so the last thing they'd have needed was an ambiguous tale, told by a non-English speaker, which would immediately be open to alternative interpretations and opinions.

Love,

Caz
X

Despite the delay, thank you for this. At the time I thought I was just not articulating what I was trying to get across and eventually gave up. My main arguement at the time was that the Schwartz as part of the conspiracy theory ends up refuting itself. Thanks again for reassuring me I was getting that across.

- Jeff

[DJA]

These children would be the same distance as Diemshitz, if he was "in" the cart.

You call that a pony cart?
THIS is a pony cart

[Ven]

I don't know how many times i have to say it ... a horse drawn cart/barrow does not have leg stands. the photo in #1 is a hand cart.
Please show me any horse drawn cart/barrow that has legs on it.
The weight/sighting requires the driver to sit on/in the cart above the axel of a two wheeled cart

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh my goodness, I've just realised I have been responding to posts made a whole year ago, in January 2020! When I got to posts dated January 30th, I thought for a moment I'd lost two days.

Why in the name of all that's holy has this thread been flogged back into life, along with Louis's poor long-dead pony?

Still the same old arguments I see, and despite Jeff Hamm's sterling efforts from a year ago, to explain why Schwartz could not have played any part in the rubbish club conspiracy theory, many of us have been reading posts in recent weeks on other threads, which are still arguing that black is white.

What a complete waste of time.

Love,

Caz
X

I’d be the first to defend you if someone said “Caz doesn’t know what day it is!”

Now if someone said “Caz doesn’t know what year it is!” I’d be stuck for a response.

[caz]

Oh my goodness, I've just realised I have been responding to posts made a whole year ago, in January 2020! When I got to posts dated January 30th, I thought for a moment I'd lost two days.

Why in the name of all that's holy has this thread been flogged back into life, along with Louis's poor long-dead pony?

Still the same old arguments I see, and despite Jeff Hamm's sterling efforts from a year ago, to explain why Schwartz could not have played any part in the rubbish club conspiracy theory, many of us have been reading posts in recent weeks on other threads, which are still arguing that black is white.

What a complete waste of time.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Im also pretty sure the truth isn't as elaborate as some would have it. The mundane hasn't yet been vetted properly.

Oh the irony...

[caz]

I suspect Schwartz understood everything he said, the fact a translator was required for Abberline to understand him is neither her nor there with that respect. I believe in the version told to Abberline it is BS who shouts Lipski, while the star has it the other way round (and changes the pipe to a knife). The fact Abberline's interpretation of Schwartz's testimony, which changes the story Schwartz told based upon assuming Schwartz misunderstood who was being shouted at, fits the conspiracy again means it must be Abberline who is part of the conspiracy because the version that "fits" is Abberline's, not Schwartz's.

The logic that connects Schwartz to the conspiracy creates paradoxes and contradictions, therefore it refutes itself. Schwartz, therefore, cannot be part of the conspiracy - the logic in the theory disproves his involvement.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I haven't read the more recent posts yet, but I suspect you are banging your head against a brick wall. If Michael didn't acknowledge this the first time you explained it, I doubt he will ever do so. It's even worse if he wants the translator to be Wess [although I've lost track of whether Wess is meant to have been in on the conspiracy or not]. How hard could it have been for the conspirators to have come up with a simple story without a shred of ambiguity, starring an obviously Gentile thug shoving Stride around outside the club, while hurling an anti-Semitic insult, very obviously at Schwartz to deter him from interfering?

This would have been an outright lie, if told to protect the club and deflect suspicion onto a non-Jewish killer, so the last thing they'd have needed was an ambiguous tale, told by a non-English speaker, which would immediately be open to alternative interpretations and opinions.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Absolutely. Schwartz's statement if argued to benefit the club could simply reflect that the club was not involved in any meaningful way (being the scene of the crime doesn't mean the club or a club member was involved in the crime) and Schwartz simply reported what he perceived and remembered the events he witnessed to be. Distilling what happened and when based upon his description as recorded is the researcher's job. Some details will be incorrect, because his memory and how he conveys that through words, filtered through a translator, are imperfect transfers of information. He, like everyone, will have some details wrong (errors of recollection), he may have witnessed an unrelated event (as some have argued), he may have misinterpreted what he say (Abberline's argument for Lipski), and so forth. All I'm pointing out is that those errors are immaterial with regards to whether what he reported was concocted by the club to distract attention away from a Jewish offender, and what he reported as he reported it does the exact opposite. All corrections, or reinterpretations if you will, are irrelevant with regards to that analysis (though they are highly important with respect to deciding if his statement is important to the case as a whole).

As for why he didn't appear at the inquest, we don't know. He may, due to his lack of English, simply not shown. He may have feared for his safety, given his testimony would implicate a Jewish offender (the unrest after Annie's murder would not have gone unnoticed by him after all). I suppose the police may even have decided they had enough information to ensure a finding of murder, and withheld his testimony as making it public might re-enflame anti-Jewish tensions (though I would expect there to be indications of that decision in the files, which there isn't). He may have been found to have been unreliable (but again, i would expect that to have been mentioned, given Home Office seemed to view his statement as vital leading to Abberline's letter indicating the likely meaning of the use of Lipski, if they found him unreliable I would think that would be passed on as well). In the end, for some reason, he doesn't appear at the inquest. There is one letter, though, which I don't have my books with me to reference, which includes a statement that one reading of sounds like he did present at the inquest, but I'm pretty sure that's a red-herring/unfortunate wording.

Ahhh, found a previous post where I mention this:

The last part is evidenced by a report from Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office, stamped as received on the 7th of NOV, 1888) and found on page 135 of Evans and Skinner's "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" (and excellent source material reference by the way), which reads:

------------------------------

Confidential

4 Whitehall Place, S.W.
6th November, 1888

Sir,
With reference to your letter of the 29th ulto. I have to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself. It appears that since the Lipski case it has come to be used as an epithet in addressing or speaking of Jews.

With regards to the latter portion of your letter I have to state that searching enquiries were made by an officer in Aberdeen Place, St. John's Wood, the last known address of the insane medical student named "John Sanders", but the only information that could be obtained was that a lady named Sanders did reside with her son at No. 20, but left that address to go abroad about two years ago.

I am,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
C. Warren.
--------------------

That bolded statement seems to indicate that Schwartz testified at the inquest, but we know he did not. Either Warren mis-stated when the opinion was arrived at (meaning, he should have said "before" or "in preparation for" the inquest, rather than "at the inquest"). Regardless, such a mistake seems unlikely to have happened if the police had found Schwartz to have been unreliable, or if they deliberately withheld his testimony. It suggests that Schwartz was expected to testify, and Warren may have, while writing this letter, simply "misspoke" overlooking the fact that Schwartz did not appear for some reason.

So while I believe Warren's statement indicating Schwartz gave testimony is incorrect, it looks to me like the kind of error that suggests the police still had some faith in Schwartz's testimony as useful information.

- Jeff

NOTE: it is, of course, possible that Warren meant the opinion was reached at the Stride inquest (between members of the police), not that the testimony itself was given at the inquest. But that would require a number of senior police, including Abberline, to have been there discussing Schwartz's statement while the inquest was going on, and I don't think that happened either.

Hi Jeff,

Refreshing to see your common sense approach to what Schwartz himself said, and how this is incompatible with any conspiracy to deflect suspicion away from the Jews, in or around the club. If Schwartz's account had Pipeman as BS man's supposed accomplice, with "Lipski" being directed at the accomplice, that's it. No conspiracy theory, regardless of why Michael Richards is unable or unwilling to see why. Why complicate matters by bringing Pipeman into it at all, if the idea was simply to invent a Gentile thug throwing his weight around outside the club, roughing up Stride and shouting something threatening and unambiguously anti-Semitic at Schwartz.

On that note, if Schwartz had done this small thing, the conspiracy theory could have worked, except that by stripping away any ambiguity, and not having to pick the most likely interpretation of what he saw and heard, the authorities would, ironically, have placed more value on his account and might have done more to get him to the inquest! As it was, if it was assumed that Schwartz was honestly mistaken or confused over the "Lipski" business, requiring the authorities to guess at its true significance, they may have weighed the value of having him testify at the inquest, repeating an interpretation of events thought to be wrong, against the potential for trouble over "Lipski" if he does so.

Talking of ambiguity, I often find the official reports and correspondence of the day can be read in two ways, and I do wonder how well some authors could express themselves in writing. In the example you posted, I immediately wondered what would happen to the meaning if you rearranged the order of words, from:

'...the opinion arrived at upon the evidence given by Schwartz at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case is that the name "Lipski"[/B], which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself...'

to:

'...the opinion arrived at, at the inquest in Elizabeth Stride's case, upon the evidence [previously] given by Schwartz, is that the name "Lipski", which he alleges was used by a man whom he saw assaulting the woman in Berners [sic] Street on the night of the murder, was not addressed to the supposed accomplice but to Schwartz himself...'

Either way, the problem with Schwartz was not his honesty as a witness, but the fact that the opinion arrived at by the powers that be differed from his own stated opinion of who was being addressed.

Love,

Caz
X

[drstrange169]

>>You're missing a crucial difference between a barrow, and an ordinary cart ...<<

Barrows are also called carts and versa versa.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s just another Conspiracy Theory. NBFN comes up with them at the drop of a hat

[Ven]

As I stated many posts ago, if its a two wheel cart , you sit above the wheel axle, not at the front of the cart, therefore you have a longer whip and could easily prod an object on the ground, like SH said... with a cucumber!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can anyone be certain about the position that Diemschutz adopted to prod Stride’s body? How can assumptions be made when we don’t know what position he was in, we don’t know Diemschutz reach or how agile he was, I’m assuming that we can’t know the exact height of the cart, we can’t know what type (therefore) length of whip that he used. Your theory appears to be based on, if the cart was x high and if the whip was x long and if Diemschutz could only reach x far?

So aren’t you simply claiming certain knowledge of 3 unknowns/uncertainties to create a mystery?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

&gt;&gt; ... you posted a photo of a carriage whip&lt;&lt;

Correct because if he was sitting "in" the cart, he would need a carriage whip.


&gt;&gt;At least the drawing hints at one relevant fact, though - that the driving position was probably right down the front, close to the pony.&lt;&lt;


Yes if the cart were full of fruit and he had nowhere else to sit, as per the picture, but since it was jewellery, he would be driving in a position that he could see if anyone was trying to steal his goods. Pretty basic stuff.

You're missing a crucial difference between a barrow, and an ordinary cart.
The driver of a barrow has to sit at the opposite end to the legs, to tip the balance off the legs, so that the load goes completely onto the wheels.
He doesn't get to choose where to sit, based on security of goods or a better view, or other considerations.
Compare that to the cart driver, who sits almost directly over the wheels.

This point about the balance of the barrow, and the related driving position, is why all the pictures of generic carts posted in this thread, are mostly irrelevant.

[drstrange169]

>> ... you posted a photo of a carriage whip<<

Correct because if he was sitting "in" the cart, he would need a carriage whip.


>>At least the drawing hints at one relevant fact, though - that the driving position was probably right down the front, close to the pony.<<


Yes if the cart were full of fruit and he had nowhere else to sit, as per the picture, but since it was jewellery, he would be driving in a position that he could see if anyone was trying to steal his goods. Pretty basic stuff.